Are Humans Hard-Wired for Faith?

[nathan1977]

Interesting article, given the conversation taking place in the Collins thread about "why we believe."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/index.html

Mods, feel free to merge if you think it's appropriate.

 

[Irvine511]

there was a fascinating, and huge, article on this in the NYT Magazine, about the evolutionary development of religion.

i'll try to dig around for it.

i suppose the question i have for the believers is this: does God have to exist independent of your ability to sense his presence? as in, does belief itself create God?

 

[LyricalDrug]

"...and though I can't say why / I know I've got to believe" - U2, Playboy Mansion

 

[sue4u2]

"...and though I can't say why / I know I've got to believe" - U2, Playboy Mansion

This lyric has always been poignant for me because, just as it states, I've just alway's known I believed, yet, I'm still searching for what the belief may encompass.

 

[sue4u2]

does belief itself create God?

Yes in million's, billions of other's belief, probably so. It's only when I am told I have to pick a religion that I run into a problem.
What if it's just there for me , and you can't define it.
I don't feel at this point in my life I have to decide what my faith is. I don't have to prove it to anyone that I'm of a certian belief. How could I possibily do this when it's special to me and I am still deciding it as I go along.

 

[Ormus]

The trouble is that there are those who are born atheist and spend their entire life atheist, not to mention those born in a "faithful" household and still end up atheist.

I'd say that a more logical answer is that religion is a gigantic cultural construct that spans many millennia, and that most people have "faith," because they are brought up to believe that they should.

 

[sue4u2]

The trouble is that there are those who are born atheist and spend their entire life atheist, not to mention those born in a "faithful" household and still end up atheist.

I'd say that a more logical answer is that religion is a gigantic cultural construct that spans many millennia, and that most people have "faith," because they are brought up to believe that they should.

You aren't born an Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslin or any other religion for the rest of your life. If one chooses to stay within the teachings of said religion, then they "chose" to believe. With the exception of parts of the world where someone literally has no choice.

 

[trevster2k]

Everyone is born a non-theist. Theism is a learned behaviour.

 

[Ormus]

You aren't born an Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslin or any other religion for the rest of your life. If one chooses to stay within the teachings of said religion, then they "chose" to believe. With the exception of parts of the world where someone literally has no choice.

Except when you're baptized in a religion when you're an infant and/or forced to attend religious services far before you're able to comprehend exactly what it is they're telling you.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

What I will never understand is that there are hundreds of religions, all mutually exclusive, with all followers just as devout and fervent as eachother with their conviction in saying that 'ours is the true religion.'
And following that, if you are part of a monothiestic religion and the sum of all religions is n, that means the other (n-1) religions have been 'made up' for lack of a better word. Therefore there was a human need to concoct the idea of religion and God, and given that all religions have credibility tanamount to eachother, what makes you think your religion wasn't just a human idea?

It brings me back to the rather striking saying for Athiests 'There are over 2000 God's invented by mankind, monothiests don't believe in all but one God, Athiests don't believe in just one more.'

Nice article btw

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Some atheists saw these brain scans as proof that the emotions attached to religion and God are nothing more than manifestations of brain circuitry.

Scott Atran doesn't consider himself an atheist, but he says the brain scans offer little in terms of understanding why humans believe in God. He is an anthropologist and author of "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion."

Instead of viewing religion and spirituality as an innate quality hardwired by God in the human brain, he sees religion as a mere byproduct of evolution and Darwinian adaptation.

From the moment our brains evolved to the point where we were able to ask the question 'why,' religion has existed. Even if there was no God, religion and God will always exist as a manifestation of our human 'need' to answer the 'why.'

 

[trevster2k]

Even if there was no God, religion and God will always exist as a manifestation of our human 'need' to answer the 'why.'

True, and thanks to inquisitive people like scientists, the list of things credited to a divine being has shrunk dramatically over the past few centuries. Sacrificing a lamb doesn't make your crops grow better or increase your chances of having a baby.

 

[yolland]

I'm beginning to think these kinds of discussions are really pointless. Invariably they seem to come down to attempts by one side or the other, or both, to rig or frame the argument (by claiming knowledge of another person's mind or content of beliefs you don't actually have, by asserting all meaning is just a construct while reserving for yourself the right to deem some constructs innately less meaningful than others, by adducing evidence retrospectively for what is in fact taken as a priori true then holding it against your opponent when the 'method' doesn't work in reverse for them, etc. etc.) with the ultimate aim of demonstrating that the signature feature of your opponent's position is an inability to think properly. It is never really a debate about actual points of argument and probably couldn't be.

 

[maycocksean]

there was a fascinating, and huge, article on this in the NYT Magazine, about the evolutionary development of religion.

i'll try to dig around for it.

i suppose the question i have for the believers is this: does God have to exist independent of your ability to sense his presence? as in, does belief itself create God?

For me, I believe God exists independently of my ability to sense His presence. But, perhaps the biggest reason I believe is because I DO sense His presence. I personally don't believe that my belief "creates God" but of course I can't prove this.

 

[diamond]

Here's what I believe, yes there is a God, and also his Son in which all good things were made and where all good things came from even before the creation of the world.

Also for those that never heard of Christ in this life, God being both just and merciful will let all of his children (human kind) have that oppurtunity.

Every good person from whatever creed or religion will have an oppurtunity to accept or reject Christ, either in this life or the next, it's all part of God's Plan of Salvation.

People that have heard of Christ in this life and rejected Christ here will not have another oppurtunity in the next life.

Here are the scriptures that explain that all humans have an inborn trait or spark letting them know there is a God or a part of God in them.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

 

[maycocksean]

True, and thanks to inquisitive people like scientists, the list of things credited to a divine being has shrunk dramatically over the past few centuries. Sacrificing a lamb doesn't make your crops grow better or increase your chances of having a baby.

I've made the point before, and I'll make it again: It's a common misperception that the primary purpose of faith is to explain what we can't explain. Especially in today's world where science has explained so much of the natural world, this is not where faith gains it's strength.

What makes faith compelling to so many people (though not everyone) is that it addresses questions that are beyond the scope of science--the "why" questions--"why are we here", "why do I have to die", "why can't I live for ever" etc.

 

[maycocksean]

I'm beginning to think these kinds of discussions are really pointless. Invariably they seem to come down to attempts by one side or the other, or both, to rig or frame the argument (by claiming knowledge of another person's mind or content of beliefs you don't actually have, by asserting all meaning is just a construct while reserving for yourself the right to deem some constructs innately less meaningful than others, by adducing evidence retrospectively for what is in fact taken as a priori true then holding it against your opponent when the 'method' doesn't work in reverse for them, etc. etc.) with the ultimate aim of demonstrating that the signature feature of your opponent's position is an inability to think properly. It is never really a debate about actual points of argument and probably couldn't be.

Only when the unbelievers think believers are stupid for believing (or vice versa). I keep holding out hope that there could be some mutual respect and we could have a meaningful discussion and even learn from each other.

 

[BonosSaint]

Maybe we are hardwired to seek out answers beyond the scope of our knowledge, to make sense of things, to fill in the gaps--that would apply to the religious and nonreligious alike.

The direction we head to seek those answers owes more to our individual makeup than our species makeup.

 

[trevster2k]

I've made the point before, and I'll make it again: It's a common misperception that the primary purpose of faith is to explain what we can't explain. Especially in today's world where science has explained so much of the natural world, this is not where faith gains it's strength.

What makes faith compelling to so many people (though not everyone) is that it addresses questions that are beyond the scope of science--the "why" questions--"why are we here", "why do I have to die", "why can't I live for ever" etc.

It's not a misconstrued when many people use the argument of creationism and the unanswered beginning of the universe as proof of the existence of a god. The origins of faith almost certainly originated from explaining the unexplainable which is what I commented on. Every ancient religion had gods of purpose and the acts of humans like sacrifice were attempts to appease these gods to improve life whether it be weather, fertility, financial, health and so on. Are we hardwired for faith, I don't think so, we are hardwired for explanations which has led to faith in an attempt for a solution.

I look to nature for answers to the "why" questions. We live to create more life, IMHO. Some creatures get a day to do it and that's it. We get a little more time and the ability to think about it, that's all. I think about those "whys" all the time and never use religion in the thought process.

I don't think anyone is stupid for believing. Their brain works differently than my brain, that's all. Different parts of the brain are more active than other parts which allow some people to be drawn to belief while others aren't.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Only when the unbelievers think believers are stupid for believing (or vice versa). I keep holding out hope that there could be some mutual respect and we could have a meaningful discussion and even learn from each other.

Peoples intelligence is independent of belief, if we aren't careful then we justify our assumptions regardless of intelligence.

 

[coemgen]

Maybe we're hardwired for a relationship with God, not just the need to believe something.

Again, if it's just believing in something for the heck of it, how do you explain the fulfilled prophecies in the NT, the evidence of Christ's miracles outside of the Bible and other things that point to him being something more than just another one of us humans?

 

[Irvine511]

Maybe we're hardwired for a relationship with God, not just the need to believe something.

aren't you assuming her existence?

Again, if it's just believing in something for the heck of it, how do you explain the fulfilled prophecies in the NT, the evidence of Christ's miracles outside of the Bible and other things that point to him being something more than just another one of us humans?

the fulfilled prophecies in the NT? seems hugely subjective, the same with "evidence" of Christ's miracles. this was 2,000 years ago. can you explain further? to my knowledge, science has never verified a "miracle" -- such a definition of an even is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Maybe we're hardwired for a relationship with God, not just the need to believe something.

Again, if it's just believing in something for the heck of it, how do you explain the fulfilled prophecies in the NT, the evidence of Christ's miracles outside of the Bible and other things that point to him being something more than just another one of us humans?

Well I must be the abberation because I have never felt the slightest inclination to faith; I was raised in an agnostic household and exposed to religious education during primary school (incidently at a state school, very dodgy setup here) and it was always a bunch of make believe. I don't have emotional contempt for faith, I feel absolutely nothing towards it.

And your insistence on the divinity of Christ and the rest of it meaning that we must be hard wired for more than just belief is demeaning to the pretty much every non-Christian believer who has arrived at different religions one way or another. Viewing all of it as false is a lot more even handed than selective elevation of one theology.

The problem with prophecies is that they are retroactive; it is only a matter of time before an event occurs that can be twisted to fit around it; it's a self affirming bias.

 

[trevster2k]

Maybe we're hardwired for a relationship with God, not just the need to believe something.

Again, if it's just believing in something for the heck of it, how do you explain the fulfilled prophecies in the NT, the evidence of Christ's miracles outside of the Bible and other things that point to him being something more than just another one of us humans?

Ok, first we have to assume that everyone on this planet of 6 billion plus people accepts God as being the only deity. Not the case. Millions of people around the world don't believe in a deity and no, they aren't all communist dictators like Stalin.

The Bible isn't the only place where prophecies are said to come from. There are ton of prophecies from all sorts of sources which when viewed from the present can be interpreted in different ways. Millions of people believe in horoscopes which is just a bunch of foolishness.

These prophecies, miracles and signs mean nothing to someone who doesn't believe the source in the first place. Therefore, no need for an explanation.